[as112-ops] AS112 evolution (responses to multiple recent messages)

[Paul Vixie]

> Date: Thu, 30 Dec 2010 09:04:46 +0200
> From: Aleksi Suhonen <as112-ops at trex.fi>
> ...
> Paul Vixie wrote:
> > you're welcome to leverage my old metazones idea as a way to ensure
> > that the next set of anycast servers is centrally controllable as to
> > what set of zones they serve, so that we don't have to add new
> > servers every time we add new zones as our only way to avoid lameness
> > and repeat-fallback.
> 
> Could we make an empty zone (empty.as112.net) and use some
> BNAME/CNAME/DNAME tricks to point any arbitrary blackholeables there?

that's sort of what metazones do, which is why i sent the pointer to that
paper.  if you want to define similar technology just for AS112 feel free.
i'm happy to send the perl implementation of metazones to anyone who wants
to play with it or work on it or release it.

> Paul Vixie also wrote:
> > what i don't know is how IANA would respond to a request to add
> > blackhole-3 and blackhole-4 to IANA.ORG, or how IANA would respond
> > to a request to add delegations for junk zones inside ip6.arpa.
> 
> and:
> > for example we've launched DNS-OARC and put these resources under
> > DNS-OARC control.
> 
> Could we put the new blackholes under dns-oarc.net instead of iana.org?
> Or as112.net for that matter ...

i originally advised IANA *not* to put in any NS RRs for 10.in-addr.arpa or
the other names that did not point to names under .iana.org, and at this
point i wish i'd put AS112 and 192.175.48.0/24 under IANA control also since
we now have an IANA->OARC->IANA dependency graph.  the problem is "standing"
by which i mean to say that DNS-OARC doesn't have standing in IETF/ISOC/IANA
to actually operate the RFC1918 PTR infrastructure and it could not be done
today.  i'd love to have IAB take official notice of DNS-OARC and formally
delegate the "junk domain" functions to DNS-OARC in an RFC so that IANA's
existing delegations could be "made proper" and also expanded to include
other "junk domain" functions like IPv6 local addresses, example.com, .local,
and whatever else.  i don't know how to formally ask IAB to do that, and i
don't think that "write an internet draft" is the beginning or end of the
story even though it's probably part of the middle of the story.

> We could also eventually phase out blackholes 1 and 2 by moving the current
> AS112 delegations to the promising new blackholes too, thus reducing
> fragmentation. Some AS112 nodes that are running on autopilot will be
> rendered redundant, but at least they won't cause troubles. Once those are
> wound down, we could return 192.175.48.0/24 as unused...

i love that vision.

> But I guess I'm getting ahead of myself now. Disregard this for now.

maybe not.  let's let wayne work on this and report back before we give up.